The U.S. war in Iraq has just been given an unexpected seal of approval. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in what he billed as his last major policy speech in Washington, has owned up to the gains in Iraq, to the surprise that Iraq has emerged as the most advanced Arab democracy in the region. It was messy, this Iraqi democratic experience, but Iraqis werent in the streets shooting each other, the government wasnt in the streets shooting its people, Gates observed. The Americans and the Iraqis had not labored in vain; the upheaval of the Arab Spring has only underlined that a decent polity had emerged in the heart of the Arab world.

Robert Gates has not always been a friend of the Iraq war. He was a member in good standing, it should be recalled, of the Iraq Study Group, a panel of sages and foreign policy luminaries, co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, who had taken a jaundiced view of the entire undertaking in Iraq. Their report endorsed a staged retreat from the Iraq war and an accommodation with Syria and Iran.

It is perhaps safe to assume that Robert Gates is carrying water for the Obama administrationan outgoing official putting out some necessary if slightly unpalatable political truths. Gates is an intensely disciplined man; he has not been a free-lancer, but instead has forged a tight personal and political relationship with President Obama. His swan song in Washington is most likely his gift to those left with maintaining and defending the American position in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf.

I'm not so sure; Gates broke pretty publicly over Obama's Osama victory dance, when all sorts of details about the mission were publicly revealed.

We are going to miss Gates. He’s been an enormous public servant, certainly the most adult in the Obama Cabinet. Carrying the water for Obama? I don’t think so. (Maybe the other way around.) Convincing and advising the man on what the right options are in Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely. And I for one am grateful that the Secretary had the persuasive skills necessary to gain the trust of the President and get him to reverse himself on nearly all of his campaign rhetoric on Iraq and Afghanistan.

4
posted on 06/04/2011 6:10:24 AM PDT
by SueRae
(I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)

Sheesh. I guess some people would hire a football coach with a record of 0 - 100 and then say he’s a good coach because he’s nice to the cheerleaders. In war, there is no substitute for victory. I’m sick of people towing the liberal line while working for the government, and then, miraculously, they discover that they disagreed with those liberal policies when they retire. Then, they write a book. Have the guts to do the right thing while serving or live with your guilty conscience instead of foisting self-congratulating books on the public.

5
posted on 06/04/2011 6:26:21 AM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

You need to take into account that the article author is a NeoCon so there is some neocon mis-info in the article. Such as the troop withdrawal from Iraq. Obama is not setting the withdrawal schedule for Iraq. He is strictly following the schedule established by the Status of Forces agreement that Bush negotiated with Iraq and signed before he left office. Only Iraq can change that schedule.

But the author is correct to identify the Realists relation ship with Obama because Obama campaigned on Realist foreign policies against McCain who campaigned on NeoCon foreign policies.

And thru-out 09 and 10, Obama has faithfully followed the Realists. It has only been in 2011 that Obama has drifted towards Liberal Interventionist policies.

Many GOPers and freepers mistakingly take great glee when the NeoCons criticize Obama's forign policies but they ought to be listening to complaints from Kissinger, Brzezenski, Scowcroft, and other prominent Realists.

The reality is that Obama, like all dem presidents, has a foreign policy team composed of Realists and Liberal Interventionists. And as is most often the case, Obama has a Liberal Interventionist as Sec of State(Hillary), a Realist as NSA(first Gen Jones replaced by Donolon), and a Realist as SecDef(Republican Realist Gates who will be replaced by Dem Realist Panetta).

In the early 1970’s physicist Edward Teller was warning Congress and the White House that failure to develop nuclear power as the prime energy source would force the U.S. in 20 years to seize oil fields in the Middle East by armed invasion.

10
posted on 06/04/2011 2:40:10 PM PDT
by Brad from Tennessee
(A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)

It was thus remarkable that, in his last policy speech, Gates acknowledged a potentially big payoff of the American labor in Iraq: a residual U.S. military presence in that country as a way of monitoring the Iranian regime next door.

I can't parse the stripes the way you do, but this is realism to me. Not that it has to be a US presence in Iraq, but a viable counter-weight to Iran is essential, which Saddam's increasingly decrepit military obviously no longer was. Scowcroft, Odom and the rest of them are the Ramsay Clarks, Daniel Elsbergs and Philip Berrigans of their generation to me-- they probably would take that as a compliment.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.